192 réponses à ce sujet

[Stronglav]

The ending is lousy and sucks.I could make up a better story.

And I did!!!Bioware should hire me!!! 

[von uber]

The more you think about the interaction between the design and building of the crucible, it's interaction with the citadel and the decision chamber built as part of it the less sense it makes.

So people built the crucible 'a power source' to interact with the station. So somehow the citadel has a connector for the crucible.. which the catalyst must have built. The decision chamber also interacts with the crucible (and again must have been designed and built by the catalyst ).
So we have the catalyst in effect designing and building the connections and functions of the crucible, including the ability to destroy itself.
Not only that, the organic races manage to perfectly design and build a device that manages to interact with it exactly as intended - without knowing of the existence of what it is supposed to be connecting to (no organic has ever stood in the chamber - therefore no organic has ever seen how it couples together ).
It's mind boggling ridiculous.

[fraggle]

@Natureguy85: You have a few very interesting counter arguments and I really like them, but I also wanted to throw in my 2 cents for some of your points as well

 

Also, why is Synthesis locked behind EMS? It might make sense if it was tied only to Crucible research, but it isn't.

 

I think the reason that Synthesis is tied to EMS is how much damage the Crucible takes. I believe that Synthesis needs the most energy of the 3 options, as indicated by the big energy beam in the middle. The other 2 choices are powered by the Crucible as well of course, but it seems there's not as much power needed as it goes through the tubes.

So when you have lower EMS, meaning lesser fleets to take on the Reapers around the Crucible to protect it, the Reapers will damage it significantly more (there is even dialogue from the Catalyst, either stating the Crucible is largely intact, or has taken damage). And I like to think that once the Reapers have damaged the Crucible enough, the energy does not suffice in order for Synthesis to become available.

 

No, the Citadel provides the choices and the Crucible merely makes them available. The Catalyst tells you that the Crucible is little more than a power source. Power sources power something else. Notice that it doesn't say that it needs him or the Citadel to be its power source. Therefore, the Crucible powers these hidden functions of the Citadel. Also, you are standing on the Citadel during the scene and the energy is emitted from the Citadel tower. The Reapers, and therefore the Catalyst, created the Citadel. The Catalyst did indeed create the options. So the question becomes; why was the Citadel built to do those things? How did the civilizations who started the Crucible know to make the Crucible do what it does?

 

There is a thread in which the idea came up the choices are actually indeed tied to the Crucible, physically built-in on the tip. I like this idea more because:

a.) If the choices had been built into the Citadel directly, why would the Catalyst not get rid of them if it both knew of them and the Crucible plans? It would seem illogical to me. Just as you say. If these options are not in the Catalyst's interest, why would it build them in?

b.) It makes more sense then when the Catalyst says it is forced to accept these new solutions, since the Crucible already docked and the tubes are then connected to the Citadel, which the Catalyst can't do anything about. I think it also makes more sense in regards to what we learn about the past cycles. They only incorporated the Citadel at some point after realising it would be more beneficial (I guess, namely spreading the energy along with the destroy or control wave throughout the galaxy via the opened arms).

 

As a side note, if every cycle added to the Crucible, was there any addition by the current cycle, or did they just follow the plans given?

 

You can collect various war assets that help with the Crucible. Most of them are peripheral, to probably make the Crucible more robust, but the Reaper heart or brain you collect at Cronos Station are used a bit differently. The heart works as a power cell, and the brain as a processor.

 

While the Catalyst might not know exactly what the Crucible does, it's not completely ignorant either. It was aware of the plans and watched it take shape over the cycles. It's likely other cycles actually built their proto-Crucibles. How does the Catalyst know the next cycle will win before the Reapers invade? How did they win? The woman in the Refuse Epilogue does make it sound like they didn't even have to fight. What if the Catalyst just destroyed the Crucible plans?

 

It tried to eradicate the plans before, but apparently that didn't work out for it so well

 

There is reason to think the Catalyst directly controls the Citadel. As was mentioned, Catalyst Shepard closes it during the Control ending and the original Catalyst raises Shepard up to meet it. Additionally, how else did the Citadel move to Earth, close, and start up the teleport beam? There was no Reaper attached to the tower, as Sovereign was.

 

This is one of the biggest questions I have in regards to the Catalyst myself. It's so confusing. While true that Shepalyst closes them, the original Catalyst does not close the arms when Shepard opens them to make the Crucible actually dock. If the Catalyst had control over it completely, don't you think it would've definitely closed the arms so the Crucible could not dock? It clearly doesn't want the Crucible to dock, especially with Low EMS it makes no sense at all if it actually could control the arms at that point. Also iirc Vendetta tells you that the Reapers have moved the Citadel to Earth. Indicating the Citadel did not just move there by itself. But then we don't know how it was really done, we don't see it, right?

It's true the arms close there as well, but maybe that's an automated process when the beam to Earth is being activated? Don't know, but I think it could be possible.

 

Why does it have to be the Catalyst that controls the Keepers? Why can't they be going off of instinct, programmed or evolved, and responding only to the Citadel itself, as Vigil suggests? Tali being wrong about the Mourning War makes sense with the idea of oral tradition being passed down by the people on the other side of the conflict. It makes perfect sense to us. The new information is also presented as historical documentation, not merely the claims of a character. The visuals help as well.

 

I think too that the Keepers more or less evolved on their own, but still carry out their duties. I like to believe that originally, the Catalyst gave them their tasks, but then leaving them alone.

 

If the Catalyst does not directly control the Reapers, then how does Shepard-Catalyst Control them? Was the Catalyst lying about Control?

 

I also don't believe that the Catalyst does not not control them.

For me, the reason why the Catalyst doesn't stop the Reapers during its and Shepard's conversation is simply that as long as a new solution isn't actually chosen, the old one is still valid to it. It is its solution after all and it does not think what it's doing is wrong, so it has no reason to stop until a new solution is found.

[Dantriges]

If you want to explain only, why the Catalyst doesn´t close the arms: The opening sequence moves millions of tons of mass in shape of the several kilometers long wards. Perhaps it´s impossible to reverse or stop the process in midsequence without severe damage to the mechanism or the Citadel. Throw in some "it´s a finely calibrated process with parts of the machinery in special operating positions, you can´t simply hit emergency stop without one of the arms flying into space or into the Citadel Tower." Or so.

 

The Catalyst said that his solution is no longer viable and let´s look for a new solution.I hope that the Catalyst is bright enough torealize that firing large amounts of molten metal at your possible new solution machine isn´t really a good idea in case you hit crucial parts. it´s not like anyone is running away  (excluding the Pathfinder initiative) or that you are on a tight time schedule.

 

"The final option, synthesis, it´s the ideal solution. Now that we know it ..."

*insert sounds of molten metal tearing through Crucible*

"exists no longer, because someone tore a giant hole though the helium-3 chambers, we can forget about it. Eh well, there is control..."

*Rattazong*

"there was control over there, yeah where this giant hole is now. Ok that leaves destroy as your choice. You have to shoot this tube"

*Pew*

Crucible emits red light

"which just got shot by Rokanasa, the Reaper which was made out of the original Crucible designers. Ah seems you have no choice at all, Bye."

[Natureguy85]

You're forcing yourself to see Shepard as a dictator when nothing indicates that he is. Even if he has the power to do something, it doesn't mean he will. Yes he absolutly has the power to indoctrinated people, but he doesn't have to. The EC doesn't indicate that he does, therefore you cannot say that he absolutely does. My Canon Shepard (Paragon Control) doesn't use indoctrination or the Reaper husks. My Renegade Shepard indoctrinates and uses the Reaper husks. See? One isn't a dictator and the other is.

 

When Shepard talks about his goals, nothing indicates that he will achieve them in a dictatorial way.

 

 

No. Shepard doesn't have to act as a dictator. If you want him to, he does. If you don't want him to, he doesn't. It's your Shepard and the Control ending is open enough for you decide how he uses the Reapers.

 

 

Why would you assume that everybody's Shepards become dictators?

 

The Extended Cut epilogues make it pretty clear that this is the case. Paragon or Renegade, as well as a little room for personal imagination determine how benevolent a dictator Shepard-Catalyst will be.

 

First: In the prisoner's dilemma both players know the possibilities and the outcomes. Shepard can't know anything  about the outcomes. There is almost no explanation given about what it all means, what will happen, and Shepard cannot know if any of the explanations can even be trusted.

 

Very true. You beat me to it!

 

It's not said that Shepard uses this absolute authority. He can if you want him to. He doesn't if you don't want him too.

 

Again, we all have our own Shepard.

 

I know that my canon Paragon Shepard would not become a dictator. My Renegade Shepard definitely does.

 

So Shepard just says he will but maybe he won't? You don't have your own Shepard as much as you, and many others, like to think. Shepard is a far more defined character than, say, The Warden. Your argument was stronger before the Extended Cut gave us the epilogues.

 

In this situation, my Paragon Shep would:

1- Get the Krogan off Earth

2- Find out if the Humans really were planning another genophage.

3a- If they were, he'd destroy the research/project. The Humans and Krogan would then each be judged for their actions by the Citadel Council (which I headcanon that Shepard joins it). A truce would then be made and maintained.

3b-If they weren't, he'd tell the Krogan they were wrong. The Krogan would then be judged by the Citadel Council. A truce would then be made and maintained.

 

So your Shepard is a dictator who delegates final judgement to the council he sits on.

[Obadiah]

Could also be that the Shepard AI is not the new Catalyst, but something else. The Control wave may have granted Shepard AI more control over the Citadel, so it could control the arms when the Catalyst couldn't.

[Dantriges]

Perhaps I could explain my points from a few pages earlier, before I got interrupted by RL events and didn´t bother to go on because it´s rather pointless anyways in the endless cycle. I complained about codex, storyline, cutscenes and gameplay being a mess which Obadiah responded by a part by part analysis. I didn´t say that they weren´t well made or that there were good reasons for it, but we were talking about ME being a masterpiece. And my point was that the different parts of the game don´t form a coherent whole, but are sometimes/often at odds with each other. Same with the different parts of the trilogy. And it doesn´t look like a deliberate effort but that the creative director was a bit sloppy or bent the whole stuff he got from the previous one, so that it fits what he wanted. it´s still well made entertainment or good, but we are talking about outstanding.

[fraggle]

If you want to explain only, why the Catalyst doesn´t close the arms: The opening sequence moves millions of tons of mass in shape of the several kilometers long wards. Perhaps it´s impossible to reverse or stop the process in midsequence without severe damage to the mechanism or the Citadel. Throw in some "it´s a finely calibrated process with parts of the machinery in special operating positions, you can´t simply hit emergency stop without one of the arms flying into space or into the Citadel Tower." Or so.

 

First off, hey, you have an avatar now!

Ok, now to your post. I like that idea. Works well with what we are shown I think. And when it would be ready to close the arms again, it's too late already because the Crucible has docked. Nice

 

The Catalyst said that his solution is no longer viable and let´s look for a new solution.I hope that the Catalyst is bright enough torealize that firing large amounts of molten metal at your possible new solution machine isn´t really a good idea in case you hit crucial parts. it´s not like anyone is running away  (excluding the Pathfinder initiative) or that you are on a tight time schedule.

 

Yeah, but this is what I mean with high enough EMS.

1. The Catalyst doesn't want the Crucible to dock, so much is clear enough I think.

2. In order to not let the Crucible dock, the Reapers attack it, but there are two possibilities about the focus of their attack.

2a. You have high EMS, meaning you collected a lot of war assets and have potentially more fleets to distract the Reapers, as well as a potentially more robust Crucible. If the Reapers have to focus on the fleets, the less the Crucible will be attacked. This ties in with what the Catalyst tells us: "your device is largely intact", they couldn't hit it that often.

2b. You don't have enough fleet power to have the Reapers focus on you and they attack the Crucible some more in the process, damaging it severely.

3. Of course, it's a bit different in High EMS for the Catalyst to want the Crucible gone because Synthesis is available, but it only knows this is an option after the Crucible has docked, it didn't know before. Throw in that it doesn't really know if Shepard is actually willing to go for Synthesis... could be its reasoning maybe. Or do you think it's kinda "stuck" in some weird way, since it also mentions it can't make the new solutions happen and that only Shepard can?

 

I guess we need to assume that the Crucible can actually take a lot of Reaper hits in order for this to work, but given there's a lot of magic going on in the final minutes... oh, well.

[Dantriges]

 

First off, hey, you have an avatar now!

Yep. After posting so much, I thought it´s more than overdue to get one..

 

Yeah it absolutely makes sense, that the Catalyst and the Reapers don´t want the Crucible to dock. No problem with that, but you weretalking about Reapers shooting the docked Crucible during the conversation. As soon as the Catalyst realized that this thing is able to achieve his tresured, elusive synthesis, it should preserve it at all costs and not take potshots at it. The HMS Hood got blown up by one hit in the ammo chamber for example and the Crucible has a huge power generators and lots and lots of fuel inside.

 

Yeah could be that it wants to shoot the Crucible before Shep takes another option but uh well, call in reinforcements. Shep took his time getting there after all (if we declare the raising of the lift and walkways, providing gravit and air as compulsive behaviour or Crucible magic the Catalyst can´t reverse). A Reaper could probably blow Shep en route to destroy or so from outside the magic oxygen bubble. Yeah ok, Reapers are notoriously bad at killing Shepard with their giant cannon, OTOH Shep walks really slow now. Or an occulus, a banshee, a squad of marauders, there is someone hostile holding the London side of the beam and there are still some pesky organics on the station according to some information from the devs. So there should be some ground troops on station. Even a Keeper could probably finish off Shepard by now.

So shooting the Crucible in case you want to prevent Shep taking another choice, maaaaybeee, but it´s a really weird way of doing that.

[Natureguy85]

WRONG.

 

Only gotten from info from the NARRATIVE...you know piecing things together from dialogue and what is shown.

 

Its the anti enders that head canon, just to criticize the ending. 

 

 

How about realizing that characters can be wrong?

 

Is it that hard?

 

Piecing together whats given isn't overthinking. Adding crazy theories and missing the point is.

 

I don't need to invent anything to criticize the ending. It's terrible on its face. Even if everything you've said is right, which it isn't, dumping in this exposition machine in the final scene is a terrible idea.

 

As I said in an earlier post, characters being wrong is fine. However the story must directly deal with the contradiction. It isn't enough to simply have a later character say something different and never raise a question about it. You mention the Morning War. Well ME3 had us watch historical logs of events that occurred. You mention Star Wars. Luke and Obi-Wan have a conversation dealing with Obi-Wan's words in the first movie. Where is that for the Catalyst?

 

Why does the story have to be planned? There is no such rule.

 

This one line destroys any notion that you know anything about story telling. Any writer will tell you that you should have a basic plan when you write your story. Of course stories change, but that doesn't mean you go in blindly. And when the story changes after part has already been released, the contradiction must be addressed and resolved or the earlier information subverted.

 

 

And once again, with characters giving lore, they are free to contradict it because characters don't really establish lore, they interpret it. This does give the writers freedom to tell it as they go. It is YOU that want to deny them this freedom.

 

I detest talking codexes myself. Its actually a very lazy way to tell a story, but ME1 was nothing but this. The whole game was character told lore driven instead of having significant plot action and showing, not just telling. Bioware in general has a very major problem of this. ME3, while not free from this problem, does better than almost any other Bioware game of not relying on characters to give plot.

 

The story wasn't told through the codex. It was told by events and dialogue. The codex provides flavor to the setting. You keep saying that the lore was told and not shown. There is plenty told, but we see that Sovereign needs Saren, needs the Conduit to get on the Citadel (only to use the console in the Council Chambers where Saren would already have access. As much as I love the little relay being important, I always expected the Conduit to take Shepard to the hidden parts of the Citadel.) We know that Sovereign had to open the Citadel relay. We also know that Saren or Sovereign shut down the other relays because the human fleet couldn't come in until Shepard opened them again.

 

No, we argue against conventional victory because the Reapers are far too advanced technologically to pull one off. Second, the narrative only gives enthrallment as the Intelligence's power and the fact is through the Reapers, the mass relays were built, many cycles later, explained by Leviathan. Once again, you are trying to add a story point that's not in the game to criticize it.

 

With only the power Bioware assigned the Catalyst, enthrallment, the ending works and makes sense. Thats all you can work with to even try to criticize that plot point. Had Bioware established it has direct control of the Citadel, than you have a case. You don't have a case right now. And whats in the narrative suggests the opposite, that its thralls run the Citadel.

 

Are there still vagueness and unaddressed issues, certainly...but that doesn't mean the ending as a whole doesn't work. As I have said in my first post, the Keepers and their nature are vague as is what the Protheans actually did with them was never explained.

 

But you actually are, and many forum posters here claim that because he is contradicted, that means there is a plot hole.

 

My interpretation is easy, if a character is contradicted through plot action or a higher authority of knowledge, than the character is wrong. 

 

Fans simply put, do not like that Catalyst and Leviathan are the two biggest lore authorities when it comes to the Reapers. But thats a fan problem, not a story problem.

 

What is the difference if the Catalyst directly operates the Citadel or uses the Keepers to do it? The only difference would be if the Prothean sabotage removed it's ability to influence the Keepers at all, not just in regards to the Citadel Relay. If this is the case, then how does it do things like move the Citadel, close the arms, start the beam, move Shepard up to its platform, and raise the bridges to Control and Destroy?

 

Again showing your lack of knowledge on story telling, having an "authority" show up at the end just to say "no, it's actually this" is bad storytelling. Pointing out something from earlier that you missed is one thing, but dropping totally new concepts is another.

 

 

I find the collective mind/being relationships in Mass Effect fascinating.

There are a few instances in order of intensity:

• The metaphorical relationship in Asari philosophy of all living beings in a collective whole espoused by Shiala
• Legion's description of the Normandy and its crew in ME2
• The mind melds that occur when Shepard and Liara they share their thoughts at London
• Leviathan and their thralls
• Cerberus scientists on the Derelict Reaper that share memories
• The Rachni and their children that "sing" to each other
• The Geth runtimes in the Geth Collective that form the Consensus
• The Thorian and the infected colonists of Zhu's Hope, their thoughts controlled by parasites from the Thorian
• The Geth runtimes on a platform that form a... what... rudimentary autonomous drone?
• The Catalyst's description of the Reapers' relationship to it - "The Citadel is part of me." "I control the Reapers." "I embody the collective intelligence of all Reapers." - indicating almost a being made up of the Reapers.

I suspect the Reaper husks and the process of indoctrination are other depictions of beings in collectives.

I think the game sort of demonstrated various versions of collectives throughout the trilogy just so the writers could play with the idea. I don't think it is a contradiction for the Reapers to each be individual entities but still be part of the collective whole of the Catalyst, in the same way that Legion is part of the Geth Consensus.

 

 

This is an interesting thought, but remember that prior to the Reaper upgrades, Legion was not an individual. Shepard, and we the players, tended to view "him" that way because that's how our minds work. We were talking to one body, so thinking of it as an individual is natural. Legion keeps correcting Shepard on this point. "There is no individual. We are Geth." Sovereign made it sound like the Reapers were indeed individuals. It does makes sense that there would be a "man in charge" though, so I don't take issue with the Catalyst on that point.

 

 

 

Actually, the catalyst does not contradict ME1. It contradicts your representation of Mass Effect 1 and this contradiction comes from your representation of the catalyst. The game itself is open enough to create interpretation that do not oppose Mass Effect 1 and the ending. But if you interpret the catalyst as an "active" character (that he isn't), or if you take "control" in its popular representation, yes it will contradict Mass Effect 1. The problem is that the ending is paradoxical, and a paradox isn't a real contradiction. The ending of Mass Effect 3 was written to feel like a contradiction, but then to understand that there's no contradiction.

Did they do it on purpose? Yes but actually Bioware started a retroactive reading of Mass Effect 1 since Mass Effect 2 : Cerberus , the reapers and the geth, all of them will oblige you to rethink Mass Effect 1 because there's another representation of them (that can be contradiction, it depends on your interpretation of things).

 

It's not that the interpretation is wrong, it's that ME3 is attempting to retcon what things meant earlier, much like Star Wars did with Vader being Luke's father. However, as I said before, in Star Wars it was addressed by the characters, satisfactorily or not, was presented in the second film rather than at the end, and made the story better for it. Mass Effect 3 does none of this.

 

I also think the Catalyst is a passive character, here's why:

"I was first created to oversee the relations of synthetic and organic life."

It was created to be an observer of these two races, to gather data and to solve a problem. Which surely makes it "active" in some way, but overall it keeps its existence hidden, letting others take care of the tasks he cannot do (be it physically or for other reasons).

To me it seemed very much like an observer letting its minions handle everything.

 

As to contradicting ME1. Yeah, we know they hadn't thought out the Catalyst back then, but I also think it still can work in retrospect by interpreting certain things. One of our users here had the idea the Catalyst also needs to be dormant and that's the reason it did nothing.

I had the idea that the Catalyst didn't want to reveal itself at that point to help Sovereign because then people would've probably noticed something is going on with the Citadel (Vigil conversation: "The Reapers are careful to keep the greatest secrets of the Citadel hidden.").

I'm sure the Catalyst still believed in Sovereign's success to overwrite the changed signal and catch this cycle by surprise by letting the Reapers through right away. But Shepard prevented that. So it could've waited patiently until the time for the Reapers came.

Or you know. It simply couldn't do anything about the changed signal and needed outside help (something physical like Saren or Sovereign to manually open it).

 

And I'd like to think that it has a certain ability to control parts of the Citadel, but not everything. The Keepers also only maintain the station's most basic functions, so maybe the Catalyst just gave them basic tasks at first, including reacting to the signal, and they evolved from there, eventually resisting the indoctrination.

The platform I'm not sure about. Notice that Shepard already stands on it when he/she opens the arms of the Citadel. The arms which the Catalyst could've chosen to close again had it

a. been able to do that (implying it does not in fact control everything)

b. not truly believed that organics are too resourceful at this point (going with tx's interpretation)

 

So, while I think tx's interpretation does work very well here, I have a few things on my mind why I don't believe it entirely. Like the idea that organics have become too resourceful? That's hardly a reason to accept defeat imo, especially since the Reapers could never be beaten conventionally before. No one knows or can calculate at this point if the next cycle will get this far to actually find the Crucible plans again, and no one knows if the Reapers can't find and get rid of all the plans before they manage to do so. I'd like to think after underestimating organics that much, the Catalyst would make really sure next cycle to eradicate the plans. So if the Catalyst really has the power to just shut down the Crucible, or even to leave Shepard down there without raising the platform, I'd have done everything to prevent Shepard from using the Crucible if I were in its shoes.

But that's just me.

We will never have any concrete proof of anything, and if it were one "simple" explanation, there wouldn't be as much speculations around as there are. It's purposely ambiguous, and some people might perceive dialogue or actions much differently than others.

 

And on another note, while the Catalyst and Reapers do come across as stupid in our cycle, it worked perfectly before. Strike at the Citadel in a surprise attack, shatter everything, reap. Easy. They were just unlucky the Protheans managed to change the signal to prevent a surprise attack in our cycle. They just underestimated organics, like the Catalyst finally admits during the ending conversation.

The only real dumb party here is the Council imo. They are horrendously stupid.

 

What I also find interesting that some people saw Sovereign as this big threat in ME1, and I was just like... yeah, whatever, we'll get to you. He was not truly a threat to me back then. He's just a machine, and machines can be broken So it's a matter of taste what they did to the Reapers. I really liked something was behind them all. Something I would not even call a villain. Something that just did the wrong things for the (maybe) right reasons.

 

Why not give itself control over the station though? Why would an intelligent machine deliberately design inefficiency and chance of error into it's system? Having the Keepers around for maintenance would still make sense, and any direct control would be assumed to be their doing. Those on the Citadel would not automatically assume that some AI is controlling the station.

 

As to your final point, that could have been very interesting. However, the proper way to do that would be to allow the protagonist to show the antagonist that he is wrong, at least about the current cycle. This was wasted on TIM in an attempt to mirror the scene with Saren. However, TIM didn't really matter. He was just an obstacle to dealing with the Reapers (though one of my criticisms of ME3 is that Cerberus is the primary antagonist as far as missions go, not the Reapers).

 

 

@dantriges, mass effect doesn't deserve to be in the same sentence as 2001 and blade runner ? That is your opinion. You don't want it to have an intellectual aspect., that is your problem because the game has this ambition, no one can deny it.
Well about reception, did you see that Mc tiernan's predator and die hard criticized hollywood writing ? And Verhoeven has a message in his films and this message isn't seen by the vast majority.
So because it is AAA game it is supposed to be uninteresting hollywood writing. That's because of that mentality that studios like Fox decide to stop interesting ideas like Trank had for the fantastic four. Thanks to that mentality disney creates superheros for children. Thanks to that mentality all blockbusters are written the same way, it's like seeing the same film again and again. Thank you Dantriges.
Mass effect do not criticize hollywood writing, it uses it to take another path!
The problem still your reception, not the writing itself. The game gave its own clues to understand the writing.

Ps seriously when blade runner was in theatre you would be part of those who disliked the film. It's only because of time and reputation that you admit that blade runner is a masterpiece. And it's because of its influence on other films that can appreciate blade runner. It's because it's an established masterpiece that you consider it this way. Same for 2001. With your mentality it's obvious that you would not be able to appreciate them in 1968 and 1980.

 

How do you jump from "ME isn't on the same level as XYZ" to "you don't want ME to have an intellectual aspect"? While the writers may have wanted to create something high level, they simply did not. Ambition is admirable to a point, but that does not mean it was successful.

 

You are likely right that some didn't like those film at creation but appreciate them now. That's not going to happen with Mass Effect. The ending still sucks.

[Natureguy85]

@Natureguy85: You have a few very interesting counter arguments and I really like them, but I also wanted to throw in my 2 cents for some of your points as well

 

 

I think the reason that Synthesis is tied to EMS is how much damage the Crucible takes. I believe that Synthesis needs the most energy of the 3 options, as indicated by the big energy beam in the middle. The other 2 choices are powered by the Crucible as well of course, but it seems there's not as much power needed as it goes through the tubes.

So when you have lower EMS, meaning lesser fleets to take on the Reapers around the Crucible to protect it, the Reapers will damage it significantly more (there is even dialogue from the Catalyst, either stating the Crucible is largely intact, or has taken damage). And I like to think that once the Reapers have damaged the Crucible enough, the energy does not suffice in order for Synthesis to become available.

 

Why, thank you

 

You're right about this, and it is made clearer with the added cutscene from the Extended Cut. Now Crucible Research and Fleets make sense, though I still don't see how ground troops help here. I just wish they'd fleshed out the EMS system more.

 

 

 

 

There is a thread in which the idea came up the choices are actually indeed tied to the Crucible, physically built-in on the tip. I like this idea more because:

a.) If the choices had been built into the Citadel directly, why would the Catalyst not get rid of them if it both knew of them and the Crucible plans? It would seem illogical to me. Just as you say. If these options are not in the Catalyst's interest, why would it build them in?

b.) It makes more sense then when the Catalyst says it is forced to accept these new solutions, since the Crucible already docked and the tubes are then connected to the Citadel, which the Catalyst can't do anything about. I think it also makes more sense in regards to what we learn about the past cycles. They only incorporated the Citadel at some point after realising it would be more beneficial (I guess, namely spreading the energy along with the destroy or control wave throughout the galaxy via the opened arms).

 

I took a look at the thread, and it is interesting, but it's all looking at the area where the Crucible meets up with the Citadel. I didn't see anyone address the fact that the beam comes from the other side of the Citadel Tower. So while the Crucible may be a source of energy, the Citadel contains the "filters" that determine what that energy will do as well as the emitter!  So the Crucible was built to use something that was already part of the Citadel. What was the purpose of this technology apart from the Crucible? This is the kind of thing that would make a plot work where the Crucible was actually planted there by the Reapers for the galaxy to find. Then the purpose could either be so they'd build it and somehow do something the Reapers couldn't do for themselves in order to achieve Synthesis, or just have it be a Red Herring to get the galaxy to waste resources on rather than fighting directly. Compare XCOM: Enemy Unknown where the invading aliens know humanity will use their technology and want them to because they want humanity to unlock its psionic potential.

 

I've always thought the Reapers should not have been too powerful to beat conventionally once the galaxy had access to Reaper tech via Sovereign. After all, even fighters have Thanix cannons now!

 

On point a), I assume it presents choices because it says Synthesis "is not something that can be... forced." This is taking from The Matrix Reloaded, "Choice. The problem is choice."

 

 

You can collect various war assets that help with the Crucible. Most of them are peripheral, to probably make the Crucible more robust, but the Reaper heart or brain you collect at Cronos Station are used a bit differently. The heart works as a power cell, and the brain as a processor.

 

True, but are those new ideas or were those just good components for something the existing plans called for?

 

 

It tried to eradicate the plans before, but apparently that didn't work out for it so well

 

Yeah, funny how it keeps missing the same plans each cycle. Another great opportunity for it to have been a Reaper trick.

 

 

 

This is one of the biggest questions I have in regards to the Catalyst myself. It's so confusing. While true that Shepalyst closes them, the original Catalyst does not close the arms when Shepard opens them to make the Crucible actually dock. If the Catalyst had control over it completely, don't you think it would've definitely closed the arms so the Crucible could not dock? It clearly doesn't want the Crucible to dock, especially with Low EMS it makes no sense at all if it actually could control the arms at that point. Also iirc Vendetta tells you that the Reapers have moved the Citadel to Earth. Indicating the Citadel did not just move there by itself. But then we don't know how it was really done, we don't see it, right?

It's true the arms close there as well, but maybe that's an automated process when the beam to Earth is being activated? Don't know, but I think it could be possible.

 

You're right all around. Shepard doesn't open the arms until after TIM dies. I just assume the Catalyst was watching all of that and decided to investigate this Shepard guy himself and see what this Crucible thing was about. Maybe he scanned it and figured out what it was before it docked. I have no idea.

 

I think too that the Keepers more or less evolved on their own, but still carry out their duties. I like to believe that originally, the Catalyst gave them their tasks, but then leaving them alone.

 

I agree and it would have been a really cool way to show that the Catalyst underestimates or  doesn't understand organic life. This would have been a great "in your face" to the "all knowing" AI.

 

I also don't believe that the Catalyst does not not control them.

For me, the reason why the Catalyst doesn't stop the Reapers during its and Shepard's conversation is simply that as long as a new solution isn't actually chosen, the old one is still valid to it. It is its solution after all and it does not think what it's doing is wrong, so it has no reason to stop until a new solution is found.

 

 

Probably true, knowing that it has to convince Shepard to play ball and he might not. Besides, the organics aren't going to stop shooting and are killing Reapers. It's not like in the Matrix Revolutions where the Sentinels are about to tear through what's left of the human defenses. This battle will go on for a bit yet.

[MrFob]

I love this thread. So glad no one is overthinking the ending here.

 

 

In this situation, my Paragon Shep would:

1- Get the Krogan off Earth

2- Find out if the Humans really were planning another genophage.

3a- If they were, he'd destroy the research/project. The Humans and Krogan would then each be judged for their actions by the Citadel Council (which I headcanon that Shepard joins it). A truce would then be made and maintained.

3b-If they weren't, he'd tell the Krogan they were wrong. The Krogan would then be judged by the Citadel Council. A truce would then be made and maintained.

 

That sounds like a dictator to me. Shepard dictates that there may be no genocide undertaken by any race vs. another and s/he uses the absolute power, granted to him/her via the reapers in order to enforce that policy.

[Dantriges]

Well the OP set the precedent.
 

Probably true, knowing that it has to convince Shepard to play ball and he might not. Besides, the organics aren't going to stop shooting and are killing Reapers. It's not like in the Matrix Revolutions where the Sentinels are about to tear through what's left of the human defenses. This battle will go on for a bit yet.

 
There is still a whole fleet of alternate targets that shoot back, if you want to shoot something. Shepard is better dealt with moving in some groundforces or ordering a few occuli in firing positions. Or well, pop the air bubble or drop the walkways, if the catalyst can do that.

[AlanC9]

Why not give itself control over the station though? Why would an intelligent machine deliberately design inefficiency and chance of error into it's system? Having the Keepers around for maintenance would still make sense, and any direct control would be assumed to be their doing. Those on the Citadel would not automatically assume that some AI is controlling the station.

But mostly this points out the implausibility of the situation ME1 posited. If it makes sense for the Catalyst to exercise personal control over the station, then it makes sense for the Reapers to put some form of intelligence on the station to watch over it. Apparently Sovereign never checked to see if everything was working on the Citadel?

I don't see how the Catalyst makes anything worse. It just means that the prothean scientists have to break more stuff. Compared to rewriting the keepers to do everything except their most essential function, and to breed true to the new plan, cutting the cables connecting the Catalyst to the rest of the station seems pretty straightforward. And if you can rewrite the keepers to not open the relay, you can rewrite them to not fix those cables.

[Obadiah]

It actually doesn't make sense for the Catalyst to even exist primarily in the Citadel. What if a warlike race discovered the Citadel in a cycle, perceived it as a threat and just nuked it endlessly until it was destroyed? When the Catalyst says that the Citadel is it's home, it could just be referring to where it was created, or where it spent so much time developing originally. A world traveler may spend years away from "home", but still consider it someplace he repeatedly returns to infrequently.

[Dantriges]

It seems that the initial idea was, that the reapers used this scheme to not tip off the curent inhabitants of the station that there is something more to it than abandoned space station from previous cycle.

 

Yeah, the plot raises some questions in ME 1, too. Did Sovereign never call inbetween the cycles. No test signal? You have to evade this problem with some "you do not want to alert the prey" and arrogant belief that the stupid ants could never throw a wrench into their elaborate trap. 

 

But it´s still a difference between "it makes sense to exercise direct control" and "we put the guiding intelligence of the Reapers inside." It turns it from useful and nice to have to necessary and quite a gamble. If someone blows it up in the first case, you just lost your honeypot and have to enter via Alpha Relay or take the scenic route. In the second case? Huh, no idea but I am pretty sure, losing the guiding intelligence is close to a disaster and nothing you want to find out, when you are the entity blown up.

 

Considering prothean attitude towards AI the prothean scientists wouldn´t have stopped until they eradicated the AI. It´s not unlikely that the AI core is shielded by the same materials the hull is made of.

 

Ok the hull is not inpenetrable

 

The station's hull is sufficiently strong that, even when subjected to the most advanced weaponry available, it would take several days of sustained bombardment to inflict any serious damage to the superstructure.

OTOH the scientists don´t have ship weapons. It is still the best explanation to explain what happened.

 

But this would lead to the question why didn´t  the Catalyst have active countermeasures? The whole idea of parking your guiding intelligence within the enemy capital without means to defend himself or manipulate the environmentis is so mindboggingly insane that you don´t know if the Catalyst is the most daring Xantaos roulette player or just a ****** thinking he is smart.

[AlanC9]

It actually doesn't make sense for the Catalyst to even exist primarily in the Citadel. What if a warlike race discovered the Citadel in a cycle, perceived it as a threat and just nuked it endlessly until it was destroyed? When the Catalyst says that the Citadel is it's home, it could just be referring to where it was created, or where it spent so much time developing originally. A world traveler may spend years away from "home", but still consider it someplace he repeatedly returns to infrequently.

I kinda like this. If we can come up with cloud computing, surely the Reapers can too.

[AlanC9]

I

Considering prothean attitude towards AI the prothean scientists wouldn´t have stopped until they eradicated the AI. It´s not unlikely that the AI core is shielded by the same materials the hull is made of.
 

That could be really dangerous. If you don't destroy him in a first strike, he can open the Relay and bring back the Reapers. Then you've blown the next cycle's chance too. It's also not clear that blowing up the Catalyst would help. Without him, maybe the Reapers realize how futile the cycles are and turn the galaxy into a big plantation, harvesting organics at will forever.

[Stronglav]

So green ending-Saren's dream.

"Human ans mashine intertwined"

 

Red-Genocide.since Geth and EDI is alive this is simple murder.

 

Blue-Control.Even worse.

"You either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself

become the villan"

[GalacticWolf5]

The Extended Cut epilogues make it pretty clear that this is the case. Paragon or Renegade, as well as a little room for personal imagination determine how benevolent a dictator Shepard-Catalyst will be.

 

So Shepard just says he will but maybe he won't? You don't have your own Shepard as much as you, and many others, like to think. Shepard is a far more defined character than, say, The Warden. Your argument was stronger before the Extended Cut gave us the epilogues.

 

So your Shepard is a dictator who delegates final judgement to the council he sits on.

 

No it doesn't. It is not said or shown that Shepard becomes a dictator in the Paragon version.

 

Shepard doesn't say he will in the Paragon version, therefore I'm free to decided whether he does or not.

 

No he is not a dictator. My Shepard makes a decision with the Council, he doesn't decide for the Council.

 

That sounds like a dictator to me. Shepard dictates that there may be no genocide undertaken by any race vs. another and s/he uses the absolute power, granted to him/her via the reapers in order to enforce that policy.

 

So anyone who isn't a dictator can't stop someone from commiting genocide?

 

I think it's fairly normal for someone who wants peace to prevent any kind of genocide.

[Dantriges]

The idea was that they´ve already cut the cables and reprogrammed the Keepers before tackling the Catalyst. But if we want to spin that idea further, why didn´t the Catalyst open the relay when the protheans arrived? Firing up a relay and arriving via mass relay transmission isn´t really sneaking in quietly.

 

And uh well, so maybe they shouldn´t destroy the AI that destroyed their empire because it could be bad for the next one? That´s the best shot anyone ever had to end this whole cycle thing. Perhaps you can open a relay into dark space and weaken or even destroy them while they dream of electronic sheep or program some sense into the Catalyst instead of blowing it up, but you won´t find that out unless you open the can. Yeah could be a risk but the protheans already lost everything personally dear to them with the exception of a small hope that the next cycle could fare better. But the chances are better that it´s helpful to tackle starkid in the next room than leaving him alone. You already know the most likely outcome

 

Anyways we are doing things right now, that will be a burden on future generations of our own species in a much closer future, I don´t see them throwing away the chance to actually do something right now that could end this whole thing, because uh It could be, that maybe the genocidal AI that just wiped out our whole species, is the nicer alternative when our primitive sex toys on Thessia have their go at ruling the galaxy sometime in the far future.

[MrFob]

It actually doesn't make sense for the Catalyst to even exist primarily in the Citadel. What if a warlike race discovered the Citadel in a cycle, perceived it as a threat and just nuked it endlessly until it was destroyed? When the Catalyst says that the Citadel is it's home, it could just be referring to where it was created, or where it spent so much time developing originally. A world traveler may spend years away from "home", but still consider it someplace he repeatedly returns to infrequently.

 

I kinda see it the same way. Here is how I reconcile the Catalyst with ME1, Sovereign and the rest of the trilogy:

 

What is the catalyst? It's not an AI like EDI but more comparable to the geth. It may have started out as a single AI but it incorporated the intelligence of each reaper into its own, becoming one intelligence the hardware of which is divided within the reapers. Each reaper contributes to this intelligence and thus, the catalyst represents - as it itself says - "the combined intelligence of all reapers". It controls them not so much in the classical sense of enforcing its will on them but rather in the sense that it represents their consensus and thus their actions. Each reaper is still "independent, free of all weakness" but in conjunction they form the intelligence that calls itself the catalyst.

 

Does the Catalyst exist on the Citadel at all times? No. It exists within the reapers, in a meta-space of their communication (again, similar to the geth, who also exist as an intelligence in the communication between thousands of programs - until ME3 that is). They can only take control over the Citadel when a proxy initiates the interface. This used to be the keepers but the protheans put a stop to that. So in ME1, that was Saren and Sovereign and in ME3, it was probably TIM and his indoctrinated servants.

 

Nitpicly point so skip it if you don't care:

Spoiler

Why did Sovereign have to dock with the tower but in ME3, no reaper docks with the station? This is not based on any direct evidence from the game but IMO, the most likely explanation is that Saren didn't have enough time to do more than to open the arms while in ME3, the reapers already have the Citadel for some time before Shepard gets there, so they may have had enough time to set something up that allows more remote control or reactivates the communication with the keepers.

 

Why does the Catalyst say that the Citadel is his home? This goes in the same direction as Obadiah went? The reapers may consider the Citadel as their home because a lot of them would have been created there. Also, it is the centerpiece of all their invasions. Usually they occupy it for the entirety of their time in the Milky Way. That fits the description well enough without the necessity that the catalyst entity must always be there.

 

So if the catalyst doesn't have much to do with the Citadel but the crucible actually needs the Citadel, then why is starchild the catalyst? Because the crucible interacts with the reapers themselves through the Citadel. The crucible is designed not to generate the three colored beams but rather to interact with the reaper's hive mind intelligence. You see, if the catalyst is the combined intelligence of all reapers, it will be changed, enriched by a new perspective whenever a new reaper is created and joins the hive. The crucible must have been designed to do the same. It adds a new personality to the number of reapers, one that influences their consensus and thus opens them up to new solutions. This - too me - is the only way for a lot of the catalyst lines to make sense, such as "the crucible changed me", "you changed the variables" and "the old solution will not work anymore". The crucible alters the perspective of the reapers so much, that they consider their old solution wrong and explore other options. Who knows, maybe the Citadel on it's own was already capable to enact the likes of destroy, control or synthesis but the reapers never considered them until the crucible interfaced with them.

 

But the catalyst says that the crucible is only a power source? Right but it doesn't specify what kind of power. In the first instance, you'd think something like electricity or some other physical energy but that never made sense to me. After all, how could we build a physical power source that is more effective than anything the reapers could come up with without even knowing what we build? No, the power the catalyst is referring to is the power of the mind. It's a source of computational power if you will, the power of imagination or a new way to see things. A bit far fetched? Maybe but it's the only way to I can see to make sense of that weird sentence.

 

So if the crucible just added a new personality, like adding a new reaper, why didn't a reaper from a former cycle already change their perspective? After all, most former races would also be opposed to the reapers and if they were added, they should suggest something new as well, right? Because the first reaper was made out of the Leviathans, which in principle did not disagree with the original AI (see the Leviathan DLC). After that, people who got reaperfied in the following cycles were usually already indoctrinated to a large degree and even before, they probably didn't have one unified opinion on anything, so the resulting reapers would probably either not have much cause to disagree anymore or at least apparently not enough to sway the whole other bunch. Also, keep in mind that reaperfying races apparently doesn't always work and we don't know why. For example, the protheans didn't make it to reaper form, maybe that was because they were too resistant? Ultimately, we don't know but the crucible was designed to sway the reapers point of view. It provides one single new idea ("your solution is wrong") and enforces it in the reaper intelligence. That's the difference.

 

So does this explain the ending choices? Kind of, at least I think it can. Destroy is now offered to Shepard because the crucible has convinced the reapers that they are wrong, so they consider letting themselves be destroyed (plus all synthetics because they only got convinced that their solution is wrong, not their premise). Control is possible because the reapers have been convinced through the crucible that they are wrong, so they are uncertain and they hope that Shepard, if he/she joins them, will provide yet another perspective that will bring about the new solution. Synthesis is now possible because the reaper indoctrination doesn't mess it up anymore. The catalyst says "We have tried it before but you were not ready". That's because if you join the understanding of reapers hive mind to that of the rest of the galaxy, it will basically indoctrinate them. The result is that the cycles will just continue. However, now that the consensus in the reaper intelligence has been broken by the crucible, Synthesis doesn't promote the old solution anymore. Thus, people can join with this intelligence without adopting it's old goals. That is what makes the rest of the galaxy suddenly ready for it. It's actually a misconception of the catalyst. It wasn't the others who weren't ready, it was the reapers themselves.

 

So that's the definite truth and everyone else is wrong? Absolutely and if you don't agree then you are too dumb and don't know literature, art or anything else for that matter and you should probably go back to primary school!... That was a joke. I do realize that this is all conjecture and a whole lot of interpretation. Like everyone else here, I am really overthinking the ending and this interpretation is not more or less valid than any other. But I do think that it does reconcile the ending with a lot of dialogue and plot points from the rest of the series without opening too many new ones. And as I like to say, if you can come up with a viable explanation for a plot hole - and be it ever so complicated - then it's not really a plot hole.

 

Wait, I thought you hate the ending and now you are defending it? Well, I still hate the ending, I still think it's really really bad and I still think the game would have been way better if it would have been scrubbed and completely redone in the EC. However, I don't really think the ending is bad because of some huge plot hole (it does have plot holes but most of them are fairly minor). No, I dislike the ending because I think it's horrible story telling. And I don't think it is horrible because it breaks conventions or because it it's too complicated but because it breaks with the characters and narrative coherence of the game (yes, I did use the word from MrBtongues video because I agree with him). Here is a more elaborate list of the main issues I do have with the ending and you will notice that "plot holes" doesn't really take a prominent role there. It is the combination of a lot of inconsistencies, some big, some small, that ruins this ending. All of them can probably be argued away (such as I just did for the inconsistency between ME1 and ME3) but there are so many and for each of them it takes so much effort, that the ending and it's underlying premise is simply not good.

 

The irony of the matter is, in order to make sense of this mess, you HAVE to overthink it.

[MrFob]

 

So anyone who isn't a dictator can't stop someone from commiting genocide?

 

I think it's fairly normal for someone who wants peace to prevent any kind of genocide.

 

No, if an elected government of a democratic nation would come to the conclusion to step in and stop the genophage and the krogan, it would be a democracy that stopped someone from commuting genocide.

However, in the control epilogue, Shepard seems to be one single individual that can (and according to your reaction to Tim's example will in your case) impose his/her will on the galaxy. That is an autocracy. The council with Shepard as the dictator.

 

You have to distinguish between the system of government you use and the actions of said government. A dictator does not have to be evil. But Shepard will still be a dictator as soon as s/he intervenes and for so long as s/he can without relevant opposition.

 

By the way, I am not advocating for any system of government here. I just point out the definition. Democracy is hardly ideal either. As legion puts it: "Organic governments impose consensus. From a single point of view in autocracies. By codifying the most broadly acceptable average of views in democracies."

[Obadiah]

...
That sounds like a dictator to me. Shepard dictates that there may be no genocide undertaken by any race vs. another and s/he uses the absolute power, granted to him/her via the reapers in order to enforce that policy.

Riiiiiiigt, that's the argument against dictatorships I forgot about. They use their absolute power to save people and stop Genocide.

I have a question - if a Genocide is taking place and you have the power to stop it, but none of the powers that be will agree to stop it, what's your plan? Chill and comfort yourself that democracy is awesome?

[GalacticWolf5]

No, if an elected government of a democratic nation would come to the conclusion to step in and stop the genophage and the krogan, it would be a democracy that stopped someone from commuting genocide.

 

However, in the control epilogue, Shepard seems to be one single individual that can (and according to your reaction to Tim's example will in your case) impose his/her will on the galaxy. That is an autocracy. The council with Shepard as the dictator.

 

I'm pretty sure the Council wouldn't allow genocide or a unnecessary genophage. Decision to step in is made by Council. I didn't think I'd need to go into details when I explained what my Shepard would do.

 

Shepard can impose his will on the galaxy, he definitly has the power to, but it doesn't mean that he does. My Paragon Shepard doesn't. He does what's best for everyone. He acts with the Council.